Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2016
Use of population approach non-linear mixed effects models in the evaluation of biosimilarity of monoclonal antibodies.
Trial report in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Infusion of Hydromorphone in Critically Ill Patients Supported by Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.Clinical and translational science · 2026Trial
- Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response relationship of trastuzumab and bevacizumab in early-stage breast cancer.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Trial
- Population pharmacokinetic modeling of PF-06439535 (a bevacizumab biosimilar) and reference bevacizumab (AvastinCancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2020Trial
- Impact of model misspecification on model-based tests in PK studies with parallel design: real case and simulation studies.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of MIL60 compared with bevacizumab in advanced or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind study.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
- Is weight-based IV dosing of trastuzumab preferable to SC fixed-dose in some patients? A systematic scoping review.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePopulation pharmacokinetic analyses (PPK) have been used to establish bioequivalence for small molecules and some biologicals. We investigated whether PPK could also be useful in biosimilarity testing for monoclonal antibodies (MAbs).
methodsData from a biosimilarity trial with two trastuzumab products were used to build population pharmacokinetic models. First, a combined model was developed and similarity between test and reference product was evaluated by performing a covariate analysis with trastuzumab drug product (test or reference) on all model parameters. Next, two separate models were developed, one for each drug product. The model structure and parameters were compared and evaluated for differences.
resultsDrug product could not be identified as statistically significant covariate on any parameter in the combined model, and the addition of drug product as covariate did not improve the model fit. A similar structural model described both the test and reference data best. Only minor differences were found between the estimated parameters from these separate models.
conclusionsPPK can also be used to support a biosimilarity claim for a MAb. However, in contrast to the standard non-compartmental analysis, there is less experience with a PPK approach. Here, we describe two methods of how PPK can be incorporated in biosimilarity testing for complex therapeutics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.